Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 431

control, N = 211

treatment, N = 221

p-value2

age

43

50.98 ± 12.72 (25 - 72)

50.32 ± 12.92 (25 - 72)

51.60 ± 12.79 (32 - 72)

0.747

gender

43

0.449

f

29 (67%)

13 (62%)

16 (73%)

m

14 (33%)

8 (38%)

6 (27%)

occupation

43

0.978

full_time

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.1%)

homemaker

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

other

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (9.1%)

part_time

7 (16%)

4 (19%)

3 (14%)

retired

13 (30%)

6 (29%)

7 (32%)

self_employ

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

t_and_e

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

unemploy

10 (23%)

5 (24%)

5 (23%)

marital

43

0.892

divore

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.1%)

married

8 (19%)

3 (14%)

5 (23%)

none

24 (56%)

12 (57%)

12 (55%)

seperation

3 (7.0%)

2 (9.5%)

1 (4.5%)

widow

3 (7.0%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.1%)

edu

43

0.399

bachelor

13 (30%)

5 (24%)

8 (36%)

diploma

7 (16%)

5 (24%)

2 (9.1%)

hd_ad

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

postgraduate

4 (9.3%)

2 (9.5%)

2 (9.1%)

primary

4 (9.3%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

secondary_1_3

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (9.1%)

secondary_4_5

10 (23%)

7 (33%)

3 (14%)

secondary_6_7

1 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

1 (4.5%)

fam_income

43

0.881

10001_12000

3 (7.0%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.1%)

12001_14000

1 (2.3%)

1 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

14001_16000

4 (9.3%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

16001_18000

2 (4.7%)

1 (4.8%)

1 (4.5%)

18001_20000

1 (2.3%)

1 (4.8%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (21%)

6 (29%)

3 (14%)

2001_4000

5 (12%)

2 (9.5%)

3 (14%)

4001_6000

6 (14%)

3 (14%)

3 (14%)

6001_8000

5 (12%)

3 (14%)

2 (9.1%)

8001_10000

3 (7.0%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (9.1%)

below_2000

4 (9.3%)

1 (4.8%)

3 (14%)

medication

43

37 (86%)

17 (81%)

20 (91%)

0.412

onset_duration

43

16.62 ± 12.51 (0 - 56)

17.90 ± 14.48 (1 - 56)

15.40 ± 10.48 (0 - 35)

0.519

onset_age

43

34.36 ± 12.65 (15 - 62)

32.43 ± 11.43 (16 - 55)

36.20 ± 13.73 (15 - 62)

0.334

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 431

control, N = 211

treatment, N = 221

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

43

3.44 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)

3.38 ± 1.32 (1 - 5)

3.50 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

0.761

recovery_stage_b

43

18.40 ± 2.67 (9 - 23)

18.43 ± 2.93 (9 - 23)

18.36 ± 2.48 (14 - 23)

0.938

ras_confidence

43

30.70 ± 4.78 (19 - 40)

30.24 ± 4.56 (19 - 40)

31.14 ± 5.05 (22 - 39)

0.545

ras_willingness

43

12.30 ± 2.05 (7 - 15)

12.29 ± 1.82 (9 - 15)

12.32 ± 2.30 (7 - 15)

0.959

ras_goal

43

17.67 ± 3.08 (12 - 24)

17.57 ± 3.09 (12 - 23)

17.77 ± 3.13 (12 - 24)

0.833

ras_reliance

43

13.44 ± 3.11 (8 - 20)

13.24 ± 2.81 (8 - 18)

13.64 ± 3.43 (8 - 20)

0.680

ras_domination

43

10.16 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)

10.95 ± 1.72 (8 - 15)

9.41 ± 2.79 (3 - 14)

0.036

symptom

43

29.67 ± 10.20 (14 - 56)

28.86 ± 8.62 (14 - 45)

30.45 ± 11.66 (15 - 56)

0.614

slof_work

43

22.98 ± 5.03 (10 - 30)

23.43 ± 4.79 (15 - 30)

22.55 ± 5.32 (10 - 30)

0.571

slof_relationship

43

26.33 ± 5.81 (11 - 35)

26.95 ± 5.89 (15 - 35)

25.73 ± 5.82 (11 - 35)

0.496

satisfaction

43

21.23 ± 6.88 (5 - 30)

19.86 ± 6.71 (5 - 29)

22.55 ± 6.93 (5 - 30)

0.204

mhc_emotional

43

11.58 ± 3.55 (4 - 18)

11.14 ± 2.97 (6 - 17)

12.00 ± 4.05 (4 - 18)

0.435

mhc_social

43

14.93 ± 4.80 (6 - 25)

15.19 ± 4.55 (8 - 25)

14.68 ± 5.13 (6 - 23)

0.733

mhc_psychological

43

22.28 ± 6.22 (6 - 36)

21.57 ± 6.18 (10 - 33)

22.95 ± 6.33 (6 - 36)

0.473

resilisnce

43

16.95 ± 4.71 (6 - 25)

16.86 ± 4.45 (6 - 24)

17.05 ± 5.04 (7 - 25)

0.897

social_provision

43

13.67 ± 3.29 (5 - 20)

13.43 ± 2.96 (8 - 20)

13.91 ± 3.64 (5 - 19)

0.638

els_value_living

43

17.14 ± 3.04 (5 - 23)

16.86 ± 2.17 (12 - 20)

17.41 ± 3.71 (5 - 23)

0.558

els_life_fulfill

43

13.07 ± 3.38 (4 - 18)

12.19 ± 3.37 (5 - 17)

13.91 ± 3.25 (4 - 18)

0.096

els

43

30.21 ± 5.78 (9 - 40)

29.05 ± 4.68 (20 - 36)

31.32 ± 6.57 (9 - 40)

0.201

social_connect

43

26.84 ± 10.18 (8 - 48)

27.05 ± 9.29 (8 - 45)

26.64 ± 11.18 (8 - 48)

0.897

shs_agency

43

14.19 ± 4.82 (3 - 20)

13.71 ± 4.43 (3 - 20)

14.64 ± 5.23 (3 - 20)

0.537

shs_pathway

43

16.70 ± 3.73 (4 - 22)

16.19 ± 3.23 (9 - 21)

17.18 ± 4.16 (4 - 22)

0.390

shs

43

30.88 ± 7.90 (7 - 42)

29.90 ± 7.22 (16 - 41)

31.82 ± 8.56 (7 - 42)

0.434

esteem

43

12.49 ± 1.24 (10 - 15)

12.67 ± 1.06 (10 - 14)

12.32 ± 1.39 (10 - 15)

0.364

mlq_search

43

15.21 ± 3.38 (3 - 21)

15.19 ± 3.31 (6 - 21)

15.23 ± 3.53 (3 - 20)

0.972

mlq_presence

43

13.67 ± 4.04 (3 - 21)

14.14 ± 2.99 (6 - 19)

13.23 ± 4.87 (3 - 21)

0.464

mlq

43

28.88 ± 6.77 (6 - 41)

29.33 ± 6.12 (12 - 40)

28.45 ± 7.45 (6 - 41)

0.676

empower

43

19.95 ± 4.33 (6 - 28)

20.10 ± 3.67 (11 - 24)

19.82 ± 4.96 (6 - 28)

0.837

ismi_resistance

43

14.93 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

14.95 ± 2.16 (12 - 19)

14.91 ± 3.31 (5 - 20)

0.960

ismi_discrimation

43

11.19 ± 3.16 (5 - 19)

12.00 ± 3.00 (5 - 17)

10.41 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)

0.100

sss_affective

43

9.49 ± 4.28 (3 - 18)

9.95 ± 3.46 (3 - 15)

9.05 ± 4.98 (3 - 18)

0.494

sss_behavior

43

9.49 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)

10.19 ± 4.24 (3 - 18)

8.82 ± 4.64 (3 - 18)

0.318

sss_cognitive

43

7.77 ± 4.01 (3 - 18)

7.48 ± 3.63 (3 - 15)

8.05 ± 4.41 (3 - 18)

0.647

sss

43

26.74 ± 11.84 (9 - 54)

27.62 ± 9.89 (9 - 44)

25.91 ± 13.63 (9 - 54)

0.642

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.38

0.263

2.87, 3.90

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.119

0.368

-0.602, 0.840

0.748

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.779

0.551

-0.301, 1.86

0.170

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.293

0.852

-1.96, 1.38

0.734

Pseudo R square

0.046

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.4

0.587

17.3, 19.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.065

0.820

-1.67, 1.54

0.937

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.624

0.553

-1.71, 0.461

0.292

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.842

0.873

-0.869, 2.55

0.362

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

30.2

1.032

28.2, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.898

1.443

-1.93, 3.73

0.537

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.502

0.830

-1.12, 2.13

0.561

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.296

1.310

-2.27, 2.86

0.826

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.3

0.442

11.4, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.032

0.617

-1.18, 1.24

0.958

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.594

0.636

-1.84, 0.652

0.374

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.830

1.000

-1.13, 2.79

0.427

Pseudo R square

0.011

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.6

0.685

16.2, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.201

0.958

-1.68, 2.08

0.835

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.109

0.749

-1.36, 1.58

0.888

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.13

1.180

-3.45, 1.18

0.360

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.2

0.681

11.9, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.398

0.952

-1.47, 2.27

0.678

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.030

0.472

-0.894, 0.954

0.951

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.653

0.745

-0.806, 2.11

0.404

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_domination

(Intercept)

11.0

0.500

9.97, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.54

0.699

-2.91, -0.174

0.032

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.962

0.997

-2.92, 0.991

0.345

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

2.57

1.548

-0.469, 5.60

0.110

Pseudo R square

0.095

symptom

(Intercept)

28.9

2.246

24.5, 33.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.60

3.140

-4.56, 7.75

0.614

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.22

2.164

-5.46, 3.02

0.587

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.957

3.413

-5.73, 7.65

0.786

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_work

(Intercept)

23.4

1.095

21.3, 25.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.883

1.530

-3.88, 2.12

0.567

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.55

0.614

-2.75, -0.347

0.035

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.991

0.969

-0.909, 2.89

0.336

Pseudo R square

0.013

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

27.0

1.259

24.5, 29.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.23

1.760

-4.67, 2.22

0.490

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-2.59

0.901

-4.36, -0.825

0.020

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

3.63

1.423

0.836, 6.41

0.033

Pseudo R square

0.022

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

1.501

16.9, 22.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.69

2.098

-1.42, 6.80

0.207

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.80

1.115

0.611, 4.98

0.036

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.85

1.760

-5.30, 1.60

0.324

Pseudo R square

0.041

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.1

0.750

9.67, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.857

1.049

-1.20, 2.91

0.418

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.44

1.313

-1.14, 4.01

0.308

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.649

2.054

-4.68, 3.38

0.760

Pseudo R square

0.028

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.2

1.143

13.0, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.509

1.597

-3.64, 2.62

0.752

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.88

1.838

-0.728, 6.48

0.135

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.78

2.883

-9.43, 1.87

0.205

Pseudo R square

0.043

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

1.347

18.9, 24.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.38

1.883

-2.31, 5.07

0.466

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.76

2.351

-2.85, 6.36

0.468

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.50

3.678

-8.71, 5.71

0.690

Pseudo R square

0.014

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.9

1.034

14.8, 18.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.188

1.445

-2.64, 3.02

0.897

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.398

0.645

-0.866, 1.66

0.554

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.44

1.019

-4.43, -0.441

0.043

Pseudo R square

0.013

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.733

12.0, 14.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.481

1.025

-1.53, 2.49

0.642

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.637

0.674

-1.96, 0.684

0.371

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.37

1.063

-0.714, 3.45

0.232

Pseudo R square

0.018

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.665

15.6, 18.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.552

0.929

-1.27, 2.37

0.556

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.26

0.753

-0.216, 2.74

0.131

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.50

1.187

-3.82, 0.831

0.241

Pseudo R square

0.017

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.2

0.710

10.8, 13.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.72

0.993

-0.227, 3.66

0.091

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.48

0.759

-0.007, 2.97

0.086

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.62

1.197

-3.96, 0.729

0.213

Pseudo R square

0.060

els

(Intercept)

29.0

1.240

26.6, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.27

1.734

-1.13, 5.67

0.198

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.73

1.321

0.138, 5.32

0.071

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.14

2.083

-7.22, 0.948

0.169

Pseudo R square

0.040

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.0

2.244

22.6, 31.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.411

3.137

-6.56, 5.74

0.896

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.78

1.792

-1.73, 5.29

0.349

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

2.56

2.829

-2.98, 8.11

0.391

Pseudo R square

0.014

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

1.067

11.6, 15.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.922

1.492

-2.00, 3.85

0.540

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.61

0.953

-0.262, 3.47

0.130

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.10

1.504

-5.05, 0.844

0.198

Pseudo R square

0.013

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.2

0.804

14.6, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.991

1.123

-1.21, 3.19

0.383

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.988

0.764

-0.508, 2.48

0.232

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.11

1.205

-3.47, 1.25

0.385

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs

(Intercept)

29.9

1.736

26.5, 33.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.91

2.427

-2.84, 6.67

0.435

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

2.45

1.301

-0.100, 5.00

0.096

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.29

2.055

-7.32, 0.736

0.147

Pseudo R square

0.015

esteem

(Intercept)

12.7

0.268

12.1, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.348

0.375

-1.08, 0.386

0.357

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.00

0.529

-0.037, 2.04

0.081

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.994

0.822

-2.61, 0.618

0.246

Pseudo R square

0.103

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.2

0.762

13.7, 16.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.037

1.065

-2.05, 2.12

0.973

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.769

1.489

-2.15, 3.69

0.613

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.95

2.317

-6.49, 2.59

0.411

Pseudo R square

0.014

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

14.1

0.893

12.4, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.916

1.249

-3.36, 1.53

0.468

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.251

0.551

-0.830, 1.33

0.660

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.18

0.871

-3.89, -0.473

0.036

Pseudo R square

0.038

mlq

(Intercept)

29.3

1.537

26.3, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.879

2.149

-5.09, 3.33

0.685

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.906

1.924

-2.86, 4.68

0.649

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-4.66

3.029

-10.6, 1.28

0.156

Pseudo R square

0.033

empower

(Intercept)

20.1

0.950

18.2, 22.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.277

1.328

-2.88, 2.33

0.836

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.092

0.517

-1.11, 0.922

0.863

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.825

0.817

-2.43, 0.777

0.342

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

15.0

0.581

13.8, 16.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.043

0.812

-1.63, 1.55

0.958

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.591

0.891

-2.34, 1.16

0.525

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.853

1.398

-1.89, 3.59

0.557

Pseudo R square

0.006

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.664

10.7, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.59

0.928

-3.41, 0.228

0.094

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.29

0.819

-2.89, 0.320

0.148

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.08

1.290

-1.45, 3.61

0.421

Pseudo R square

0.061

sss_affective

(Intercept)

9.95

0.929

8.13, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.907

1.298

-3.45, 1.64

0.489

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.058

0.624

-1.16, 1.28

0.928

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.641

0.986

-2.57, 1.29

0.533

Pseudo R square

0.015

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.955

8.32, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.37

1.335

-3.99, 1.24

0.310

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.52

1.067

-3.61, 0.572

0.190

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.19

1.681

-2.10, 4.49

0.497

Pseudo R square

0.026

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

7.48

0.891

5.73, 9.22

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.569

1.245

-1.87, 3.01

0.650

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.56

0.931

-0.266, 3.38

0.131

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.61

1.468

-5.48, 0.271

0.112

Pseudo R square

0.017

sss

(Intercept)

27.6

2.599

22.5, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.71

3.634

-8.83, 5.41

0.640

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.081

2.001

-4.00, 3.84

0.969

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.28

3.160

-7.47, 4.92

0.697

Pseudo R square

0.007

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.10) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.87, 3.90], t(47) = 12.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.84], t(47) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.86], t(47) = 1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.55])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.38], t(47) = -0.34, p = 0.731; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.43 (95% CI [17.28, 19.58], t(47) = 31.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-1.67, 1.54], t(47) = -0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.46], t(47) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.55], t(47) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.00])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.24 (95% CI [28.22, 32.26], t(47) = 29.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.93, 3.73], t(47) = 0.62, p = 0.534; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.13], t(47) = 0.60, p = 0.545; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.27, 2.86], t(47) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.29 (95% CI [11.42, 13.15], t(47) = 27.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.24], t(47) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.65], t(47) = -0.93, p = 0.350; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.13, 2.79], t(47) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.57 (95% CI [16.23, 18.91], t(47) = 25.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.08], t(47) = 0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.58], t(47) = 0.15, p = 0.885; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-3.45, 1.18], t(47) = -0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [11.90, 14.57], t(47) = 19.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.27], t(47) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.95], t(47) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 9.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.11], t(47) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.28) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.97, 11.93], t(47) = 21.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.54, 95% CI [-2.91, -0.17], t(47) = -2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.23, -0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-2.92, 0.99], t(47) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.57, 95% CI [-0.47, 5.60], t(47) = 1.66, p = 0.098; Std. beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.26e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.86 (95% CI [24.45, 33.26], t(47) = 12.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.60, 95% CI [-4.56, 7.75], t(47) = 0.51, p = 0.611; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-5.46, 3.02], t(47) = -0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-5.73, 7.65], t(47) = 0.28, p = 0.779; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.77])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.43 (95% CI [21.28, 25.57], t(47) = 21.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-3.88, 2.12], t(47) = -0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.55, 95% CI [-2.75, -0.35], t(47) = -2.53, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.89], t(47) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.49, 29.42], t(47) = 21.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.23, 95% CI [-4.67, 2.22], t(47) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.59, 95% CI [-4.36, -0.83], t(47) = -2.88, p = 0.004; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.78, -0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.63, 95% CI [0.84, 6.41], t(47) = 2.55, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.15, 1.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.86 (95% CI [16.92, 22.80], t(47) = 13.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-1.42, 6.80], t(47) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.00])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.80, 95% CI [0.61, 4.98], t(47) = 2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [0.09, 0.73])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.85, 95% CI [-5.30, 1.60], t(47) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.14 (95% CI [9.67, 12.61], t(47) = 14.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-1.20, 2.91], t(47) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.85])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-1.14, 4.01], t(47) = 1.09, p = 0.274; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-4.68, 3.38], t(47) = -0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.99])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [12.95, 17.43], t(47) = 13.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.64, 2.62], t(47) = -0.32, p = 0.750; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.88, 95% CI [-0.73, 6.48], t(47) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.78, 95% CI [-9.43, 1.87], t(47) = -1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [18.93, 24.21], t(47) = 16.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-2.31, 5.07], t(47) = 0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.84])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [-2.85, 6.36], t(47) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-8.71, 5.71], t(47) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.94])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [14.83, 18.88], t(47) = 16.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-2.64, 3.02], t(47) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.66], t(47) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.44, 95% CI [-4.43, -0.44], t(47) = -2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-0.99, -0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.43 (95% CI [11.99, 14.87], t(47) = 18.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.49], t(47) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.76])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.68], t(47) = -0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.71, 3.45], t(47) = 1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.86 (95% CI [15.55, 18.16], t(47) = 25.37, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.27, 2.37], t(47) = 0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.22, 2.74], t(47) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.93])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.50, 95% CI [-3.82, 0.83], t(47) = -1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.19 (95% CI [10.80, 13.58], t(47) = 17.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.72, 95% CI [-0.23, 3.66], t(47) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.48, 95% CI [-6.51e-03, 2.97], t(47) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-2.00e-03, 0.91])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.62, 95% CI [-3.96, 0.73], t(47) = -1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.22, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.05 (95% CI [26.62, 31.48], t(47) = 23.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-1.13, 5.67], t(47) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.20, 1.01])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.73, 95% CI [0.14, 5.32], t(47) = 2.06, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.02, 0.95])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.14, 95% CI [-7.22, 0.95], t(47) = -1.51, p = 0.132; Std. beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.05 (95% CI [22.65, 31.45], t(47) = 12.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-6.56, 5.74], t(47) = -0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.78, 95% CI [-1.73, 5.29], t(47) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.56, 95% CI [-2.98, 8.11], t(47) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.71 (95% CI [11.62, 15.81], t(47) = 12.85, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-2.00, 3.85], t(47) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.61, 95% CI [-0.26, 3.47], t(47) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.73])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.10, 95% CI [-5.05, 0.84], t(47) = -1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.19 (95% CI [14.62, 17.77], t(47) = 20.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.19], t(47) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.48], t(47) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.70])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.47, 1.25], t(47) = -0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.50, 33.31], t(47) = 17.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-2.84, 6.67], t(47) = 0.79, p = 0.430; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.45, 95% CI [-0.10, 5.00], t(47) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.65])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.29, 95% CI [-7.32, 0.74], t(47) = -1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.67 (95% CI [12.14, 13.19], t(47) = 47.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.39], t(47) = -0.93, p = 0.352; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.04, 2.04], t(47) = 1.89, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.62])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.61, 0.62], t(47) = -1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.07, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.27) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.19 (95% CI [13.70, 16.68], t(47) = 19.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-2.05, 2.12], t(47) = 0.03, p = 0.972; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.15, 3.69], t(47) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.95, 95% CI [-6.49, 2.59], t(47) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.76])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.39, 15.89], t(47) = 15.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.92, 95% CI [-3.36, 1.53], t(47) = -0.73, p = 0.464; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.33], t(47) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.18, 95% CI [-3.89, -0.47], t(47) = -2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.96, -0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.33 (95% CI [26.32, 32.35], t(47) = 19.08, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-5.09, 3.33], t(47) = -0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-2.86, 4.68], t(47) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.68])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.66, 95% CI [-10.60, 1.28], t(47) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.96) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.10 (95% CI [18.23, 21.96], t(47) = 21.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.33], t(47) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.92], t(47) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.43, 0.78], t(47) = -1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.62e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.95 (95% CI [13.81, 16.09], t(47) = 25.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.63, 1.55], t(47) = -0.05, p = 0.957; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.34, 1.16], t(47) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-1.89, 3.59], t(47) = 0.61, p = 0.542; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.73, 1.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.00 (95% CI [10.70, 13.30], t(47) = 18.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.41, 0.23], t(47) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.89, 0.32], t(47) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.45, 3.61], t(47) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [8.13, 11.77], t(47) = 10.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.45, 1.64], t(47) = -0.70, p = 0.485; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.28], t(47) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-2.57, 1.29], t(47) = -0.65, p = 0.515; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.19 (95% CI [8.32, 12.06], t(47) = 10.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.99, 1.24], t(47) = -1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-3.61, 0.57], t(47) = -1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-2.10, 4.49], t(47) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.48 (95% CI [5.73, 9.22], t(47) = 8.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.87, 3.01], t(47) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.75])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-0.27, 3.38], t(47) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.84])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.61, 95% CI [-5.48, 0.27], t(47) = -1.78, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.28e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.62 (95% CI [22.52, 32.71], t(47) = 10.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-8.83, 5.41], t(47) = -0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-4.00, 3.84], t(47) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -6.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-7.47, 4.92], t(47) = -0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

174.797

180.708

-84.398

168.797

recovery_stage_a

random

6

178.093

189.914

-83.046

166.093

2.704

3

0.439

recovery_stage_b

null

3

244.648

250.558

-119.324

238.648

recovery_stage_b

random

6

249.085

260.907

-118.543

237.085

1.562

3

0.668

ras_confidence

null

3

301.292

307.203

-147.646

295.292

ras_confidence

random

6

305.815

317.637

-146.908

293.815

1.477

3

0.688

ras_willingness

null

3

222.247

228.158

-108.123

216.247

ras_willingness

random

6

227.090

238.912

-107.545

215.090

1.157

3

0.763

ras_goal

null

3

263.871

269.781

-128.935

257.871

ras_goal

random

6

268.401

280.223

-128.201

256.401

1.469

3

0.689

ras_reliance

null

3

254.629

260.540

-124.315

248.629

ras_reliance

random

6

258.827

270.649

-123.414

246.827

1.802

3

0.615

ras_domination

null

3

245.477

251.388

-119.739

239.477

ras_domination

random

6

245.654

257.475

-116.827

233.654

5.824

3

0.121

symptom

null

3

386.438

392.349

-190.219

380.438

symptom

random

6

391.783

403.605

-189.892

379.783

0.654

3

0.884

slof_work

null

3

304.818

310.729

-149.409

298.818

slof_work

random

6

304.906

316.728

-146.453

292.906

5.912

3

0.116

slof_relationship

null

3

325.951

331.862

-159.976

319.951

slof_relationship

random

6

324.571

336.392

-156.285

312.571

7.380

3

0.061

satisfaction

null

3

345.826

351.737

-169.913

339.826

satisfaction

random

6

343.922

355.743

-165.961

331.922

7.904

3

0.048

mhc_emotional

null

3

282.631

288.542

-138.316

276.631

mhc_emotional

random

6

286.690

298.512

-137.345

274.690

1.941

3

0.585

mhc_social

null

3

327.222

333.133

-160.611

321.222

mhc_social

random

6

329.922

341.744

-158.961

317.922

3.300

3

0.348

mhc_psychological

null

3

343.743

349.654

-168.871

337.743

mhc_psychological

random

6

348.754

360.575

-168.377

336.754

0.989

3

0.804

resilisnce

null

3

300.790

306.701

-147.395

294.790

resilisnce

random

6

300.971

312.792

-144.485

288.971

5.819

3

0.121

social_provision

null

3

268.491

274.402

-131.245

262.491

social_provision

random

6

272.179

284.000

-130.089

260.179

2.312

3

0.510

els_value_living

null

3

263.075

268.986

-128.538

257.075

els_value_living

random

6

265.859

277.681

-126.930

253.859

3.216

3

0.359

els_life_fulfill

null

3

272.082

277.993

-133.041

266.082

els_life_fulfill

random

6

271.752

283.574

-129.876

259.752

6.330

3

0.097

els

null

3

330.448

336.358

-162.224

324.448

els

random

6

330.804

342.626

-159.402

318.804

5.643

3

0.130

social_connect

null

3

386.014

391.925

-190.007

380.014

social_connect

random

6

387.992

399.814

-187.996

375.992

4.022

3

0.259

shs_agency

null

3

308.865

314.776

-151.433

302.865

shs_agency

random

6

311.404

323.226

-149.702

299.404

3.461

3

0.326

shs_pathway

null

3

279.037

284.948

-136.518

273.037

shs_pathway

random

6

282.553

294.375

-135.276

270.553

2.484

3

0.478

shs

null

3

357.934

363.845

-175.967

351.934

shs

random

6

359.549

371.371

-173.775

347.549

4.385

3

0.223

esteem

null

3

179.558

185.469

-86.779

173.558

esteem

random

6

179.415

191.237

-83.708

167.415

6.143

3

0.105

mlq_search

null

3

284.879

290.790

-139.440

278.879

mlq_search

random

6

290.028

301.850

-139.014

278.028

0.851

3

0.837

mlq_presence

null

3

287.176

293.087

-140.588

281.176

mlq_presence

random

6

285.283

297.105

-136.642

273.283

7.893

3

0.048

mlq

null

3

353.992

359.903

-173.996

347.992

mlq

random

6

356.657

368.479

-172.328

344.657

3.335

3

0.343

empower

null

3

285.672

291.583

-139.836

279.672

empower

random

6

289.277

301.099

-138.639

277.277

2.395

3

0.495

ismi_resistance

null

3

251.880

257.791

-122.940

245.880

ismi_resistance

random

6

257.254

269.076

-122.627

245.254

0.626

3

0.890

ismi_discrimation

null

3

266.520

272.431

-130.260

260.520

ismi_discrimation

random

6

267.403

279.225

-127.702

255.403

5.117

3

0.163

sss_affective

null

3

286.241

292.152

-140.121

280.241

sss_affective

random

6

291.071

302.892

-139.535

279.071

1.170

3

0.760

sss_behavior

null

3

301.121

307.032

-147.561

295.121

sss_behavior

random

6

304.016

315.838

-146.008

292.016

3.105

3

0.376

sss_cognitive

null

3

293.258

299.169

-143.629

287.258

sss_cognitive

random

6

295.322

307.144

-141.661

283.322

3.936

3

0.268

sss

null

3

397.417

403.328

-195.708

391.417

sss

random

6

402.870

414.692

-195.435

390.870

0.546

3

0.909

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

21

3.38 ± 1.21

22

3.50 ± 1.21

0.748

-0.101

recovery_stage_a

2nd

6

4.16 ± 1.31

-0.664

4

3.99 ± 1.32

-0.415

0.839

0.148

recovery_stage_b

1st

21

18.43 ± 2.69

22

18.36 ± 2.69

0.937

0.066

recovery_stage_b

2nd

6

17.80 ± 1.85

0.635

4

18.58 ± 1.69

-0.222

0.497

-0.791

ras_confidence

1st

21

30.24 ± 4.73

22

31.14 ± 4.73

0.537

-0.614

ras_confidence

2nd

6

30.74 ± 3.06

-0.343

4

31.93 ± 2.74

-0.545

0.524

-0.816

ras_willingness

1st

21

12.29 ± 2.02

22

12.32 ± 2.02

0.958

-0.028

ras_willingness

2nd

6

11.69 ± 1.73

0.506

4

12.55 ± 1.68

-0.200

0.440

-0.734

ras_goal

1st

21

17.57 ± 3.14

22

17.77 ± 3.14

0.835

-0.150

ras_goal

2nd

6

17.68 ± 2.30

-0.081

4

16.75 ± 2.15

0.765

0.518

0.696

ras_reliance

1st

21

13.24 ± 3.12

22

13.64 ± 3.12

0.678

-0.482

ras_reliance

2nd

6

13.27 ± 1.94

-0.036

4

14.32 ± 1.70

-0.826

0.369

-1.271

ras_domination

1st

21

10.95 ± 2.29

22

9.41 ± 2.29

0.032

0.757

ras_domination

2nd

6

9.99 ± 2.43

0.472

4

11.01 ± 2.45

-0.787

0.521

-0.502

symptom

1st

21

28.86 ± 10.29

22

30.45 ± 10.29

0.614

-0.416

symptom

2nd

6

27.63 ± 7.12

0.318

4

30.19 ± 6.54

0.069

0.564

-0.665

slof_work

1st

21

23.43 ± 5.02

22

22.55 ± 5.02

0.567

0.824

slof_work

2nd

6

21.88 ± 2.97

1.446

4

21.99 ± 2.54

0.521

0.951

-0.101

slof_relationship

1st

21

26.95 ± 5.77

22

25.73 ± 5.77

0.490

0.774

slof_relationship

2nd

6

24.36 ± 3.61

1.638

4

26.76 ± 3.18

-0.653

0.274

-1.517

satisfaction

1st

21

19.86 ± 6.88

22

22.55 ± 6.88

0.207

-1.372

satisfaction

2nd

6

22.65 ± 4.35

-1.427

4

23.49 ± 3.84

-0.484

0.749

-0.430

mhc_emotional

1st

21

11.14 ± 3.44

22

12.00 ± 3.44

0.418

-0.338

mhc_emotional

2nd

6

12.58 ± 3.35

-0.567

4

12.79 ± 3.34

-0.311

0.924

-0.082

mhc_social

1st

21

15.19 ± 5.24

22

14.68 ± 5.24

0.752

0.147

mhc_social

2nd

6

18.07 ± 4.81

-0.829

4

13.77 ± 4.74

0.262

0.175

1.238

mhc_psychological

1st

21

21.57 ± 6.17

22

22.95 ± 6.17

0.466

-0.305

mhc_psychological

2nd

6

23.33 ± 6.00

-0.388

4

23.21 ± 5.97

-0.056

0.976

0.026

resilisnce

1st

21

16.86 ± 4.74

22

17.05 ± 4.74

0.897

-0.167

resilisnce

2nd

6

17.26 ± 2.87

-0.353

4

15.01 ± 2.48

1.807

0.193

1.993

social_provision

1st

21

13.43 ± 3.36

22

13.91 ± 3.36

0.642

-0.402

social_provision

2nd

6

12.79 ± 2.28

0.533

4

14.64 ± 2.08

-0.613

0.194

-1.549

els_value_living

1st

21

16.86 ± 3.05

22

17.41 ± 3.05

0.556

-0.408

els_value_living

2nd

6

18.12 ± 2.27

-0.932

4

17.17 ± 2.13

0.174

0.510

0.697

els_life_fulfill

1st

21

12.19 ± 3.25

22

13.91 ± 3.25

0.091

-1.265

els_life_fulfill

2nd

6

13.67 ± 2.36

-1.091

4

13.77 ± 2.20

0.100

0.945

-0.074

els

1st

21

29.05 ± 5.68

22

31.32 ± 5.68

0.197

-0.961

els

2nd

6

31.78 ± 4.11

-1.155

4

30.91 ± 3.83

0.172

0.737

0.366

social_connect

1st

21

27.05 ± 10.28

22

26.64 ± 10.28

0.896

0.130

social_connect

2nd

6

28.83 ± 6.65

-0.564

4

30.98 ± 5.93

-1.375

0.596

-0.682

shs_agency

1st

21

13.71 ± 4.89

22

14.64 ± 4.89

0.540

-0.547

shs_agency

2nd

6

15.32 ± 3.29

-0.952

4

14.14 ± 2.98

0.296

0.560

0.701

shs_pathway

1st

21

16.19 ± 3.68

22

17.18 ± 3.68

0.383

-0.731

shs_pathway

2nd

6

17.18 ± 2.53

-0.729

4

17.06 ± 2.32

0.087

0.942

0.085

shs

1st

21

29.90 ± 7.96

22

31.82 ± 7.96

0.435

-0.836

shs

2nd

6

32.36 ± 5.04

-1.071

4

30.98 ± 4.46

0.368

0.652

0.603

esteem

1st

21

12.67 ± 1.23

22

12.32 ± 1.23

0.357

0.324

esteem

2nd

6

13.67 ± 1.30

-0.930

4

12.32 ± 1.31

-0.006

0.118

1.249

mlq_search

1st

21

15.19 ± 3.49

22

15.23 ± 3.49

0.973

-0.012

mlq_search

2nd

6

15.96 ± 3.66

-0.255

4

14.05 ± 3.69

0.393

0.425

0.636

mlq_presence

1st

21

14.14 ± 4.09

22

13.23 ± 4.09

0.468

0.949

mlq_presence

2nd

6

14.39 ± 2.47

-0.260

4

11.30 ± 2.13

2.000

0.041

3.209

mlq

1st

21

29.33 ± 7.04

22

28.45 ± 7.04

0.685

0.252

mlq

2nd

6

30.24 ± 5.53

-0.260

4

24.70 ± 5.28

1.076

0.123

1.587

empower

1st

21

20.10 ± 4.35

22

19.82 ± 4.35

0.836

0.307

empower

2nd

6

20.00 ± 2.56

0.102

4

18.90 ± 2.18

1.016

0.470

1.221

ismi_resistance

1st

21

14.95 ± 2.66

22

14.91 ± 2.66

0.958

0.026

ismi_resistance

2nd

6

14.36 ± 2.37

0.355

4

15.17 ± 2.32

-0.158

0.597

-0.487

ismi_discrimation

1st

21

12.00 ± 3.04

22

10.41 ± 3.04

0.094

1.072

ismi_discrimation

2nd

6

10.71 ± 2.37

0.867

4

10.21 ± 2.26

0.137

0.735

0.343

sss_affective

1st

21

9.95 ± 4.26

22

9.05 ± 4.26

0.489

0.829

sss_affective

2nd

6

10.01 ± 2.62

-0.053

4

8.46 ± 2.29

0.533

0.328

1.416

sss_behavior

1st

21

10.19 ± 4.38

22

8.82 ± 4.38

0.310

0.717

sss_behavior

2nd

6

8.67 ± 3.24

0.793

4

8.49 ± 3.04

0.170

0.930

0.094

sss_cognitive

1st

21

7.48 ± 4.08

22

8.05 ± 4.08

0.650

-0.342

sss_cognitive

2nd

6

9.04 ± 2.93

-0.938

4

7.00 ± 2.72

0.630

0.270

1.225

sss

1st

21

27.62 ± 11.91

22

25.91 ± 11.91

0.640

0.485

sss

2nd

6

27.54 ± 7.61

0.023

4

24.55 ± 6.76

0.385

0.520

0.848

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(48.96) = 0.32, p = 0.748, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.86)

2st

t(48.38) = -0.20, p = 0.839, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.53)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(42.14) = -0.08, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.59)

2st

t(31.56) = 0.69, p = 0.497, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.08)

ras_confidence

1st

t(41.80) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.81)

2st

t(36.96) = 0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-2.56 to 4.95)

ras_willingness

1st

t(44.11) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.28)

2st

t(24.15) = 0.79, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.40 to 3.13)

ras_goal

1st

t(42.59) = 0.21, p = 0.835, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.13)

2st

t(27.49) = -0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.86 to 1.99)

ras_reliance

1st

t(41.58) = 0.42, p = 0.678, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.32)

2st

t(42.07) = 0.91, p = 0.369, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-1.29 to 3.39)

ras_domination

1st

t(48.33) = -2.21, p = 0.032, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-2.95 to -0.14)

2st

t(41.20) = 0.65, p = 0.521, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.16 to 4.21)

symptom

1st

t(42.19) = 0.51, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-4.74 to 7.93)

2st

t(30.90) = 0.58, p = 0.564, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-6.37 to 11.48)

slof_work

1st

t(41.37) = -0.58, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-3.97 to 2.21)

2st

t(47.24) = 0.06, p = 0.951, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-3.42 to 3.64)

slof_relationship

1st

t(41.62) = -0.70, p = 0.490, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-4.78 to 2.33)

2st

t(40.98) = 1.11, p = 0.274, Cohen d = -1.52, 95% CI (-1.97 to 6.78)

satisfaction

1st

t(41.68) = 1.28, p = 0.207, Cohen d = -1.37, 95% CI (-1.55 to 6.92)

2st

t(39.74) = 0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-4.45 to 6.13)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(46.24) = 0.82, p = 0.418, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.25 to 2.97)

2st

t(28.35) = 0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-4.21 to 4.62)

mhc_social

1st

t(45.16) = -0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.73 to 2.71)

2st

t(25.36) = -1.39, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-10.63 to 2.05)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(46.19) = 0.73, p = 0.466, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.41 to 5.17)

2st

t(28.18) = -0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-8.03 to 7.79)

resilisnce

1st

t(41.47) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.73 to 3.11)

2st

t(45.02) = -1.32, p = 0.193, Cohen d = 1.99, 95% CI (-5.68 to 1.18)

social_provision

1st

t(42.07) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.59 to 2.55)

2st

t(32.38) = 1.33, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -1.55, 95% CI (-0.99 to 4.69)

els_value_living

1st

t(42.73) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.43)

2st

t(26.69) = -0.67, p = 0.510, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.85 to 1.96)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(42.51) = 1.73, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.72)

2st

t(28.00) = 0.07, p = 0.945, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.89 to 3.09)

els

1st

t(42.50) = 1.31, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-1.23 to 5.77)

2st

t(28.10) = -0.34, p = 0.737, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-6.08 to 4.35)

social_connect

1st

t(41.79) = -0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-6.74 to 5.92)

2st

t(37.22) = 0.54, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-5.99 to 10.30)

shs_agency

1st

t(42.01) = 0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.93)

2st

t(33.33) = -0.59, p = 0.560, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-5.26 to 2.90)

shs_pathway

1st

t(42.16) = 0.88, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.26)

2st

t(31.32) = -0.07, p = 0.942, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-3.28 to 3.05)

shs

1st

t(41.69) = 0.79, p = 0.435, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (-2.99 to 6.81)

2st

t(39.42) = -0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-7.52 to 4.76)

esteem

1st

t(48.17) = -0.93, p = 0.357, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.40)

2st

t(39.67) = -1.60, p = 0.118, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.36)

mlq_search

1st

t(48.01) = 0.03, p = 0.973, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.10 to 2.18)

2st

t(38.31) = -0.81, p = 0.425, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-6.72 to 2.89)

mlq_presence

1st

t(41.46) = -0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.44 to 1.61)

2st

t(45.28) = -2.11, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 3.21, 95% CI (-6.05 to -0.14)

mlq

1st

t(43.19) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-5.21 to 3.45)

2st

t(25.01) = -1.59, p = 0.123, Cohen d = 1.59, 95% CI (-12.69 to 1.62)

empower

1st

t(41.35) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.96 to 2.40)

2st

t(47.68) = -0.73, p = 0.470, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-4.14 to 1.94)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(44.67) = -0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.59)

2st

t(24.57) = 0.54, p = 0.597, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-2.30 to 3.92)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(43.12) = -1.71, p = 0.094, Cohen d = 1.07, 95% CI (-3.46 to 0.28)

2st

t(25.20) = -0.34, p = 0.735, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.57 to 2.55)

sss_affective

1st

t(41.55) = -0.70, p = 0.489, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-3.53 to 1.71)

2st

t(42.98) = -0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 1.42, 95% CI (-4.70 to 1.61)

sss_behavior

1st

t(42.67) = -1.03, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-4.07 to 1.32)

2st

t(27.00) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.31 to 3.95)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(42.44) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.08)

2st

t(28.58) = -1.13, p = 0.270, Cohen d = 1.23, 95% CI (-5.74 to 1.67)

sss

1st

t(41.73) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-9.05 to 5.63)

2st

t(38.49) = -0.65, p = 0.520, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-12.28 to 6.31)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(34.56) = 0.69, p = 0.988, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(9.02) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.77)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(8.70) = 0.78, p = 0.915, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-1.54 to 3.13)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(11.41) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.00)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(9.49) = -1.10, p = 0.597, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-3.12 to 1.07)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(8.50) = 1.18, p = 0.543, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.01)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(25.28) = 1.25, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-1.04 to 4.24)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(9.08) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-6.33 to 5.80)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(8.31) = -0.74, p = 0.960, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.17)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(8.54) = 0.93, p = 0.756, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.50 to 3.57)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(8.58) = 0.69, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-2.19 to 4.08)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(15.64) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-2.78 to 4.36)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(13.19) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-5.96 to 4.14)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(15.51) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-6.14 to 6.65)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(8.40) = -2.57, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 1.81, 95% CI (-3.86 to -0.22)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(8.96) = 0.88, p = 0.807, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.62)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(9.65) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.34 to 1.87)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(9.41) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.26 to 1.99)

els

1st vs 2st

t(9.39) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-4.11 to 3.29)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(8.69) = 1.96, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -1.38, 95% CI (-0.69 to 9.38)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(8.90) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.17 to 2.18)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(9.04) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.26 to 2.02)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(8.60) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.50 to 2.82)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(23.99) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.41)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(22.90) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-5.15 to 2.78)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(8.39) = -2.84, p = 0.042, Cohen d = 2.00, 95% CI (-3.48 to -0.38)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(10.18) = -1.56, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 1.08, 95% CI (-9.11 to 1.61)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(8.30) = -1.44, p = 0.372, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-2.37 to 0.54)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(12.29) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.19 to 2.72)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(10.09) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.49 to 2.08)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(8.47) = -0.76, p = 0.938, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.34 to 1.17)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(9.58) = -0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.31 to 2.66)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(9.33) = -0.90, p = 0.778, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-3.65 to 1.56)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(8.63) = -0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-6.99 to 4.27)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(27.90) = 1.32, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.99)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(8.88) = -1.11, p = 0.591, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.65)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(8.61) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.41)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(10.86) = -0.90, p = 0.773, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.86)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(9.28) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.83)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(8.43) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(21.20) = -0.90, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.25)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(8.93) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-6.20 to 3.75)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(8.27) = -2.51, p = 0.071, Cohen d = 1.45, 95% CI (-2.96 to -0.14)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(8.47) = -2.85, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 1.64, 95% CI (-4.67 to -0.52)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(8.51) = 2.49, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -1.43, 95% CI (0.23 to 5.36)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(14.17) = 1.04, p = 0.634, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.53 to 4.40)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(12.28) = 1.50, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (-1.30 to 7.05)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(14.07) = 0.71, p = 0.980, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-3.56 to 7.07)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(8.34) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.88)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(8.83) = -0.93, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.91)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(9.41) = 1.64, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.99)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(9.21) = 1.92, p = 0.174, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-0.26 to 3.23)

els

1st vs 2st

t(9.20) = 2.03, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -1.15, 95% CI (-0.31 to 5.76)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(8.60) = 0.98, p = 0.705, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-2.34 to 5.90)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(8.77) = 1.66, p = 0.263, Cohen d = -0.95, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.80)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(8.90) = 1.28, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.74)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(8.52) = 1.87, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-0.55 to 5.45)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(20.27) = 1.77, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.18)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(19.50) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.55 to 4.09)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(8.34) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.52)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(9.85) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-3.50 to 5.31)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(8.26) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.10)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(11.57) = -0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.44)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(9.78) = -1.53, p = 0.315, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-3.16 to 0.59)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(8.40) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.50)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(9.35) = -1.40, p = 0.390, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-3.97 to 0.93)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(9.14) = 1.65, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.58 to 3.70)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(8.55) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-4.69 to 4.53)

Plot

Clinical significance